08 Jul 2010: Interview

For Hudson Bay Polar Bears, The End is Already in Sight

The polar bear has long been a symbol of the damage wrought by global warming, but now biologist Andrew Derocher and his colleagues have calculated how long one southerly population can hold out. Their answer? No more than a few decades, as the bears’ decline closely tracks that of the Arctic’s disappearing sea ice.

No polar bears have been more closely studied than Canada’s western Hudson Bay population. In recent decades, biologists such as Andrew E. Derocher of the University of Alberta have compiled an impressive store of data on everything from the weight of females at denning, to the body mass of bears of all sexes, to the length of time the bears spend annually on the shores of Hudson Bay, to the decline of sea ice in the bay itself.

Now, Derocher, working with Peter K. Molnar and other colleagues from the University of Alberta, has marshaled that data to forecast how long it will be before western Hudson Bay’s polar bears disappear. The calculation is not overly complex, since the health of polar bears is directly tied to the amount of time they spend on sea ice hunting seals.

The basic facts are as follows: The region’s polar bears have been forced to spend an extra week per decade onshore; the bears have been losing, on average, more than 20 pounds per decade; the body mass of the bears has been steadily declining; females have lost 10 percent of their body length; and the population has dropped from 1,200 to 900 in three decades, with much of the decline coming in the last 10 years.

Looking at projected sea ice declines, Derocher and his colleagues estimated in a recent paper in Biological Conservation that western Hudson Bay’s polar bear population could well die out in 25 to 30 years. Indeed, in an interview with Yale Environment 360 senior editor Fen Montaigne, Derocher said that the population — one of 19 in the Arctic — could be gone within a decade. All it would take is several straight years of low sea ice conditions — such as the current year — which could force the bears onshore for more than five months a year, leading to a sharp decline in the bears' physical condition and the inability of females to gestate cubs. “One of the things we found was that the changes in this population could happen very dramatically,” says Derocher. “And a lot of the change could come within a single year if you just ended up with an earlier melt of sea ice.”

Yale Environment 360: You predict that the western Hudson Bay polar bear population, which is one of the most southerly, could reach a point within three decades where there are too few animals to sustain a breeding population. Could you summarize for our readers how you reached that conclusion?

Andrew Derocher: Sure. If you look at polar bears in the global context we’ve actually got 19 different subpopulations. Now, they’re reasonably distinct, but the interesting thing about the western Hudson Bay population is that it’s actually one of the most accessible and it’s certainly by far the most studied population that we have. So that’s one of the reasons that we’re focusing our attention on the western Hudson Bay population. But

The changes that could come in this population could happen very dramatically.”

more importantly, we have a lot of the background information on the workings of this population. So we understand very well things like how fat a bear has to be to produce a certain number of cubs, we know a lot about how much energy these bears are burning during the period of time over the summer that they’re forced ashore when the sea ice melts. We also have a very good understanding of how the sea ice has changed in this part of the world. So really, what this is is kind of a model system that’s giving us some early indications about what one of the more southern populations is doing relative to the issue of climate change.

So what we did in the study, led by Peter Molnar, is that Peter is a mathematical biologist and was able to create models that take the inner workings of a bear and put it into mathematical context. And from here, it’s really not much more than sort of an accounting process — a fancy one — but you can account for changes in the sea ice and how the bears respond in terms of how much fat they’ve been able to store. And from there it’s fairly easy to run out various scenarios of sea ice change to look at when, basically, the bears’ fat stores run out, and when that happens the bears, of course, subsequently die. So it’s not that complicated, but the implications of the results are quite dramatic.

One of the major issues we’ve found is that when we’ve looked through the empirical data we can see there’s been a gradual decline in body condition that dates right back into the 1980s. And we can now correlate that very nicely with the loss of sea ice in this ecosystem. And one of the things we found was that the changes that could come in this population could happen very dramatically and a lot of the change could come within a single year if you just ended up with an earlier melt of sea ice.

e360: In the 1980s the bears were on the ice around eight months a year and ashore and fasting around four months a year. Is that true?

Derocher: That’s exactly it. And what we’ve seen is that over the last three decades we’re getting about one week extra onshore time for this population every decade. That doesn’t sound like a lot, but you have to remember that these bears are burning almost two pounds of body fat for every day that they’re ashore. So basically what’s happening is that we’re

An underweight adult female with two 10-month-old cubs waiting for the ice to re-form on Hudson Bay in November.

pushing them at both ends of the spectrum, in that we force them off the ice earlier in the springtime. And that’s actually the best feeding period for the bears. So we’re taking them away from their food sooner. And because we’re putting them on shore sooner, it starts the period of time that they have to rely on their body fat sooner. And then, on the flip side, the freeze-up in the fall, which allows them to get back out and start hunting again, we’re pushing them at that end of the situation, as well. This has always been a population that’s sort of sitting on the edge — we don’t see polar bears any further south except for the Ontario population. So if we extend this ice-free period too long, we predict that the population really won’t sustain itself. We’re already seeing early indications of this, but the real concern is that the change could come very quickly.

e360: Let’s talk about the early indications of this decline in physical condition and body mass.

Derocher: One of the things that’s very clear is that their overall body mass has been declining slowly and quite steadily. It really amounts to several pounds per year per bear — it’s really an indication of how much energy the bears have been able to store while they’re out on the sea ice. And it’s this energy that really drives what the bears can do. So pregnant females coming ashore in July or June — we actually had bears ashore this year as early as June 11, which is almost unheard of for bears in the Hudson Bay area — but the ice was very poor this year. So the bears come ashore, and it’s the amount of fat that they’ve been able to store — especially these pregnant females, because they won’t actually get to see another seal until around February or March next year — so they’re relying totally on their stored fat to produce cubs. And we know that fat females produce more twins and triplets, whereas skinny females either give up the whole reproductive attempt or give birth to smaller cubs, and those smaller cubs have subsequently lower survival rates.

So the cumulative effect has been that the decline in body conditions has resulted in fewer cubs being produced, meaning there’s less recruitment in the population, and that’s caused a decline in the number of bears in

If we extend this ice-free period too long, we predict that the population really won’t sustain itself.”

western Hudson Bay. On top of this, there is a harvest of bears that occurs not in Manitoba, where the bears summer, but further north in the territory of Nunavut, and those bears that migrate northward on the very first-forming ice in the fall are harvested there. So the harvest didn’t come down in numbers fast enough for the population to stabilize. So the combination of lower recruitment and the harvest has caused this population to decline well over 20 percent over the last decade or so.

e360: The population now is about how many?

Derocher: It’s just a little over 900.

e360: And 30 years ago it was eleven or twelve hundred?

Derocher: That’s correct, yes. A little over twelve hundred.

e360: And are you saying that the bears, over the last few decades, have been losing on the order of 20 or 30 pounds per decade?

Derocher: That’s about right, yes. And particularly it shows up in the females. The females have lost about 10 percent of their body length. Females used to grow longer — we measure them from the tip of the tail to the tip of the nose — and they’ve shrunk about 10 percent over the last three decades. So not only are the bears skinnier but also smaller, so we’ve got the famous shrinking bears of Hudson Bay.

e360: It’s my understanding that the lightest female that, in your western Hudson Bay population, has ever been measured, at den entry, was 189 kilograms?

Derocher: That’s correct.

e360: And below that — is that kind of a threshold beyond which it’s difficult for them to reproduce?

Derocher: That’s exactly what’s happening. The bears are being pushed, and they just don’t have enough stored fat on their bodies to successfully reproduce. And, of course, one of the consequences of this extended fasting period is that the females have to make a physiological decision whether to continue with a pregnancy or just basically to abandon the reproductive attempt. It’s clear that there’s been a massive reduction in how many females are able to carry off a reproductive attempt. A lot of females try to initiate the denning and then their fat stores run out and they return to the sea ice without cubs, or they try to return to the sea ice with cubs that haven’t developed far enough along to be viable out on the sea ice, and then we see problems there.

e360: In the 1980s, when you had a typical time off the ice of, say, four months, there was a three to six percent mortality of bears, but if the sea ice continues to decline and you’ve got polar bears off the ice for, say, six months a year, you could see mortality of 28 to 48 percent. Is that correct?

Derocher: In this paper we actually looked at the most conservative scenario. Adult males are probably [more] able to deal with this fasting period than any group of bears out there, because when they hit the shore of Hudson Bay they basically just flop down on the beaches, curl up, and go to sleep for the ice-free period. So they really don’t do much with those energy stores, and when you compare them with a sub-adult bear that’s actively growing or a female that has offspring with her, she’s going to be nursing those cubs all through this ice-free period. So the energetic demands on the females are actually quite a bit higher. So we looked at these adult males and projected forward in time based on how long this ice-free period was and how they would basically do with this extended fasting period. Now, 150 or 180 days is a much longer ice-free period than we’ve normally seen, but this year, for example, it seems like we’re easily going to top 150 days. It just depends on when the ice freezes in the fall. So, basically, we have an early meltout... and clearly they’re already going to be pushed because last year was a late freeze-up, so they didn’t get out early and we’ve taken them off very early this year. So we may be looking at a record-breaking scenario for this ice-free period.

Because the bears are distributed in a bell-shaped curve, there’s always been a little bit of mortality. We always have a few males barely hanging on in the fall, and sometimes they don’t make it back to the ice and die on shore. So the concern is, because you’re going up the rise of the bell you can very quickly shift to more and more of the population that doesn’t have the energy reserves to make it back onto the sea ice. So our prediction is increasing mortality, but the mortality may increase very quickly over time as you go up this bell curve, and that’s our real concern. When it occurs is very difficult to say. The problem is, we can end up with this sort of scenario, going to 150 or 160 or 180 days of ice-free period at any time.

e360: And at that point you could be seeing annual mortality rates of adult males of 30 percent?

Derocher: That’s exactly what would happen. And that’s the concern, that because the males are one of the most robust elements in the population, if we see 30 percent mortality in the adult males we will also see, probably, much higher mortality in sub-adult animals and we can pretty much be certain that we won’t see many females able to nurse their cubs long

The number of observed cannibalism events in the last couple of years in this population has been skyrocketing.”

enough to get through this ice-free period. So the real rub here is that there’s not much in the way of terrestrial resources for these bears to pull on during the ice-free period — there’s a few berries and a bit of grass, but that’s certainly not enough to sustain a polar bear population. So the challenge is, you push them, there’s nothing on shore, they run out of energy, and then the real catastrophe is that you’ll also see things we’re beginning to see on land like increased cases of infanticide and cannibalism. The number of observed cannibalism events in the last couple of years in this population has just been skyrocketing. That’s what happens when you get desperate animals trying to survive — anything becomes a viable option and cannibalism is one that we’ve seen increasing dramatically.

e360: So under a scenario in which you would have bears on shore for half the year, if you’re losing 25 to 30 percent of the population per year and have females unable to produce cubs, you could see a population of polar bears go extinct in a matter of a decade once this cascade starts to unfold?

Derocher: It’s totally dependent on the sea ice changes. The bears will respond in lockstep with the sea ice conditions. And certainly everything we’re seeing in the Hudson Bay ecosystem is of great concern.

e360: In the western Hudson Bay region, how much sooner is the ice melting out in the spring and how much later is it forming in the fall?

Derocher: It’s about one week per decade. This year I’d say we’ve lost at least two weeks in terms of sea ice cover in the Hudson Bay system. Some of the bears are already ashore. I mean, the bears don’t want to leave the sea ice — it is their primary habitat — but you can see them lined up there trying to find the last few seals. I mean, a lucky bear that gets one or two seals late in the ice-cover season will do much better than a bear who happened to miss a couple of seals. It’s a very fine balance that these bears are on, and of course one of the problems is that as the ice breaks up it becomes more energetically expensive for the bears to move through these habitats.

e360: And when you say more energetically [expensive], you mean they’ve got to swim instead of walk on the ice?

Derocher: That’s exactly the problem. And you can sort of think about it in the hunting success that the bears have. It’s not a lot of fun to be in and out of water all the time, and it’s a rather inefficient way for the bears to move across large distances, and these bears are moving several hundred miles over a single year. So what happens is that it’s just less energetically

Even the most optimistic projections don’t allow the polar bears to adapt to terrestrial resources.”

effective. So you’re basically burning more energy just to find your meal. And the other challenge is that when you’ve got very high ice cover there are still cracks where the seals have to maintain access to air. So what happens is as the ice cover drops down it becomes much more difficult for the bears to predict where the seals are actually going to be, just because there are so many more places where they can come up for a breath of air that it becomes much more difficult for the bears to get access to the seals to make a successful kill. So in that context it really becomes a challenge for the animals to get themselves at the right place at the right time. So we think that their hunting efficiency drops dramatically as sea ice conditions break up.

e360: And what about suggestions that polar bears will adapt to a life onshore and eat goose eggs.

Derocher: Well, even the most optimistic projections don’t allow the polar bears to adapt to terrestrial resources. We’ve actually looked at goose eggs and blueberries, which are two things that polar bears do eat periodically. If they ate pretty much all of the goose eggs from the snow goose colony in the Churchill area, it could probably help them out for about one or two days of lost time out on the sea ice. Of course, once you eat all of the goose eggs there is no more goose colony, so it’s kind of a nonissue. So there’s no way that it’s a viable food resource.

e360: Another key factor in your paper is the impact of declining sea ice and larger areas of open water on the ability of males and females to find one another and mate.

Derocher: What happens is the females come into estrus or breeding condition in the springtime and they’re basically going about their business. They seem more intent on trying to find seals and to improve their body condition. Because usually these females have just weaned 2 ½-year-old cubs that have really depleted their body reserves, so the females are mostly looking for things to eat. The males are much more driven to find females, especially early in the spring. So what they do is, they

The worst-case scenarios are that this population could be gone within the decade.”

basically take off on these long journeys, they’re just running a straight line, and every time they come across another set of tracks they veer off for two or three steps. And if it’s not a female that’s in breeding condition, they just get back on their bearing and they continue on in their search. If it is a female that’s in reproductive condition, then it’s basically like a magnet. The challenge is that historically the sea ice has always been fairly well connected, and so it’s fairly [easy] to get on those tracks — and these bears can follow them for several days trying to find the female. The challenge becomes if the sea ice starts to break up the bear is no longer able to find the female as efficiently in these broken ice areas. We project that there will be a decrease in the searching efficiency of males for finding females. And if that happens, basically, the pregnancy rate of females drops.

e360: And when you put all these factors together in your paper, with what degree of certainty did you project that within several decades the western Hudson Bay population might no longer be viable?

Derocher: The worst-case scenarios are that this population could be gone within the decade. A more optimistic scenario would say that we’ll bounce between good years and bad years for several decades to come. Everything that we can see about the sea ice in western Hudson Bay suggests that it’s going to disappear sooner rather than later... The question is, will we get a really bad year that knocks the wind out of this population sooner than later? Or will it just sort of bounce along on this long-term decline?

e360: Do you think, given the sea ice trends throughout the Arctic, that what is happening with the western Hudson Bay population is really a harbinger of what’s to come with more northerly populations?

Derocher: That’s exactly the concern that we have. We have, as I mentioned, 19 different populations. Many of them are doing quite well right now, and they will continue to do well for periods to come. Just by the nature of the way the sea ice is in these areas, they’re much less vulnerable to warming. It’s really those populations that are in those most dynamic habitats along the ice edge that we’re most concerned about. So in

Wildlife biologists and climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that the disappearance of Arctic sea ice will lead to a sharp drop in polar bear populations. But some skeptics remain unconvinced, and they have managed to persuade the Canadian government not to take key steps to protect the animals.READ MORE

that context we can look at the bears in the Hudson Bay ecosystem, we can look in the bears in the Beaufort Sea, and then the population that’s shared between Alaska and Russia in the Chukchi Sea — that population looks also extremely vulnerable to climate change. And then if we go to the population that’s right between Canada and Greenland in the Davis Strait area, that area is under huge pressure from loss of sea ice. It was actually quite a robust population until quite recently. And then if we go further east into the Barents Sea between Norway and Russia — that population also looks to be extremely vulnerable to ongoing warming. So we’re going to see different scenarios played out in different populations, but what we’re seeing is sort of this progression of loss of body condition that results in lower reproduction and then subsequent increases in mortality. That seems to be the chain of events that is showing up in more and more populations as we get better information.

e360: Very sobering.

Derocher: It’s not a lot of fun for somebody who’s spent over 30 years studying polar bears. The first paper I coauthored about this came out in 1993 and at that time I was still under the impression that even though climate change was a concern it was really going to be for the next generation of biologists — or perhaps even the one after that — to deal with the issue. And I’ve been really shocked at the rate of change, and I’ve probably been even more shocked at the lack of concern of political bodies to deal with this... It’s been quite disheartening to watch this lack of interest, and I think it’s really unfortunate that people don’t understand that we have a limited time to deal with this issue if we want to save the polar bears.

COMMENTS

Great work. Thank you for the piece and to the researchers for their diligence and endurance in their research.

Fascinating how valuable mathematics is doing biological research - essentially epidemiology. Makes one wish I stuck with math longer and was not so intimidated by it.

For more great mathematics based analysis see professor Neil Frazer's, U of Hawaii, work on the devastating impact sea pen fish farming is having on British Columbia's wild salmon species.

Will we ever learn from our mistakes, especially if it requires us to change any of our habits and customs.

The Polar Bears are in a sense a corollary for out kids. It is only a matter of time before they will come under threat as well - no matter where we live.

Posted by
Donald Scott
on 12 Jul 2010

Wold it ever be considered to transfer the bear population little by little to a colder climate to save them?

Posted by
Judith J. Wilson
on 12 Jul 2010

As a Canadian this is a tragic fact of the evolution of our planet...on my home turf.

Climate change, regardless of the why, is happening.

Posted by
David Johnstone
on 12 Jul 2010

The southern Hudson Bay population of 1000 bears is (obviously) found further south, down into James Bay, and yet the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources reports that the population is "unchanged from the mid-1980s".

www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Newsroom/LatestNews/MNR_E004159.html

Why the difference?

Posted by
DB
on 13 Jul 2010

Yesterday's National Post reports that in northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island, the polar bear population has increased from about 800 to 2100 since the 1980s. How do we know there's a problem from ice melting when it could just be a shift of polar bear population from one area to another? What has the total polar bear population been doing over the past 30 years? How do you account for the increase in population in Eastern Canada?

Based on fossil remains of a polar bear from an epoch known to be even warmer than today.

Posted by
g_w
on 15 Jul 2010

DB asks why the Southern Hudson Bay population hasn't shown a population decline despite being further south. The reasons for this relate to how the sea ice breaks up in Hudson Bay. There is a counter clockwise gyre in the Bay and the last ice is pushed southwards until it lies off the Ontario coast. Bears in the southernmost areas can stay on the ice longer than those in western Hudson Bay. However, the sea ice break-up and freeze-up are being delayed in the whole of Hudson Bay.

The first symptom of change in a population is a loss in body mass. Such a drop in body mass was noted in the Southern Hudson Bay population (see Obbard et al. 2006. Temporal trends in the body condition of southern Hudson Bay polar bears. Climate Change Research Information Note 3: 1-8. – a pdf is available online).

From what we’ve seen in other areas, the drop in mass is followed by a drop in reproduction, body size, survival, and eventually, if the population estimates are good, we can measure the decline in abundance.

The Southern Hudson Bay population isn’t monitored as closely as the Western Hudson Bay population. There is every indication that the Southern Hudson Bay population is simply lagging behind. There are 19 populations of polar bears worldwide – some are doing fine for now while others, such as the Southern Beaufort Sea, are being seriously affected by global warming.

Posted by
Andrew Derocher
on 16 Jul 2010

L. Tachner asks how do we know that there isn’t a shift in polar bears from one area to another. In eastern Canada, polar bears are monitored by satellite telemetry and we very rarely see bears emigrate. Fidelity to an area is a hallmark of polar bears. Further, many polar bears are caught and tagged. Researchers and hunters report tagged bears to a central database and the area near Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island just underwent one of the largest population inventories ever. Tagged bears from other areas weren’t showing up there.

The increase in this population reflects a recovery from a period decades ago when there
was unlimited harvest (e.g., sealers used to shoot many bears). The harp seal population has also exploded and provides a huge food base for the population. Unfortunately, changing ice patterns are putting both harp seals and polar bears at risk in the NW Atlantic.

There are 19 populations of polar bears in the Arctic. Over the last 30 years, some are larger and some have declined. Past trends can’t be used to indicate future trends – this was the central theme of the paper we recently published. Many populations in the past declined because they were hunted too heavily. Currently declines are linked to declining sea ice and this is now the primary threat to the species. There are numerous published scientific studies that link polar bear population declines to changing sea ice conditions.

Posted by
Andrew Derocher
on 17 Jul 2010

G_H raises the issue of polar bears having survived warmer periods than we are currently
experiencing. The Eemian is the warming period that most people consider but the latest evidence is that this is the period when polar bears evolved from grizzly bears whose closest ancestors are now in the Alaska Archipelago (the ABC islands). It may have been this warming that caused polar bears to separate from grizzlies and move northward. From the oldest fossil we have found in Svalbard, it appears that the bear was living in conditions very much like we have today in the same area. Our understanding of prehistoric sea ice conditions isn't great. What past warming did to polar bears isn't clear but we know well enough that they need sea ice and their habitat is disappearing.

Nonetheless, it's not the current temperatures that are the big concern for polar bears but the
trends and forecasts for sea ice that are the problem. There is little hope to maintain many of
populations with the projected loss of sea ice. It is clear that 2/3 or more of the populations will disappear with no serious mitigation of greenhouse gasses.

Posted by
Andrew Derocher
on 27 Jul 2010

I do agree that the lack of ice conditions will lead to la lack of 'seal caves' and a plethora of air holes, hence greatly increased difficulty for the bears in finding a suitably fat-rich diet.

However, I think that there is yet another factor that may be being overlooked, and that is the effect of PCBs that I believe have been found in the fat of seals, polar bears and the Inuit women's milk. This too could have serious repercussions on their ability to breed and rear healthy cubs. So my question is: have you analysed the fat for the presence of PCBs or indeed other pollutants that may be building up at the top end of the food chains?

Posted by
Alison Tottenham of www.tigergreen.co.uk
on 07 Jun 2011

Comments have been closed on this feature.

RELATED ARTICLES

Loss of Snowpack and Glaciers In Rockies Poses Water Threat From the Columbia River basin in the U.S. to the Prairie Provinces of Canada, scientists and policy makers are confronting a future in which the loss of snow and ice in the Rocky Mountains could imperil water supplies for agriculture, cities and towns, and hydropower production.READ MORE

Iceland Seeks to Cash In On Its Abundant Renewable Energy Still reeling from recent financial crises, Iceland is hoping to use its bountiful sources of geothermal and hydroelectric energy to help boost its economy. Among the country’s more ambitious plans is an undersea cable to carry renewably generated electricity to the U.K.READ MORE

Coal Pollution and the Fight For Environmental Justice As its director of "climate justice," Jacqueline Patterson is leading the NAACP’s campaign to shut down coal-burning power plants in minority communities. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, she talks about the skepticism she faces from her own constituents.READ MORE

An Advocate in Pursuit of Environmental Justice at EPA Matthew Tejada is taking over the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice after helping low-income communities in Houston fight air pollution in their neighborhoods. He talks to Yale Environment 360 about how his work in Texas prepared him for the challenges of his new post.READ MORE

MORE IN Interviews

How Climate Change Helped Lead to the Uprising in Syriaby diane toomeyA new study draws links between a record drought in Syria and the uprising that erupted there in 2011. In a Yale Environment 360 interview, Colin Kelley, the study’s lead author, discusses how the severity of that drought was connected to a long-term warming trend in the region. READ MORE

Why Ocean Health Is Better And Worse Than You Thinkby fen montaigneThe good news is the world’s oceans have not experienced the extinctions that have occurred on land. But as ecologist Douglas McCauley explains in a Yale Environment 360 interview, marine life now face numerous threats even more serious than overfishing.READ MORE

Giving Local Women a Voice In Grass-Roots Conservationby diane toomeyAs “gender advisor” at Conservation International, Kame Westerman seeks to include local women’s perspectives and priorities into the planning of projects in developing countries. This approach, she says, can be critical in determining whether a project succeeds or fails. READ MORE

Fostering Community Strategies For Saving the World's Oceansby crystal gammonTo conservationist Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, getting coastal communities involved in plans to protect their waters is critical for protecting the planet's oceans. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, she talks about her work in one Caribbean island and how it shows how such a strategy can get results.READ MORE

The Case for a Climate Goal Other Than Two Degrees Celsiusby diane toomeyScientists and climate negotiators have largely agreed that limiting global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius is an important goal. But political scientist David Victor disagrees, arguing that the benchmark is too simplistic and should be abandoned in favor of other indicators. READ MORE

He's Still Bullish on Hybrids, But Skeptical of Electric Carsby kay mcdonaldFormer Toyota executive Bill Reinert has long been dubious about the potential of electric cars. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, he talks about the promise of other technologies and about why he still sees hybrids as the best alternative to gasoline-powered vehicles.READ MORE

How to Make Farm-to-Table A Truly Sustainable Movementby diane toomeyChef Dan Barber says the farm-to-table movement that he helped build has failed to support sustainable agriculture on a large scale. To do that, he says in a Yale Environment 360 interview, we need a new way of looking at diverse crops and the foods we eat. READ MORE

The Case for a Moratorium On Tar Sands Developmentby ed struzikEcologist Wendy Palen was one of a group of scientists who recently called for a moratorium on new development of Alberta’s tar sands. In a Yale Environment 360 interview, she talks about why Canada and the U.S. need to reconsider the tar sands as part of a long-term energy policy.
READ MORE

e360 MOBILE

e360 VIDEO

The Warriors of Qiugang, a Yale Environment 360 video, chronicles a Chinese village’s fight against a polluting chemical plant. It was nominated for a 2011 Academy Award for Best Documentary Short.
Watch the video.